A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[Sheldon]

that is without objective evidence and that is also funny.

Citing a reference tool like a dictionary, is axiomatically using objective evidence to support my claim that I was using the commonly understood definition of the word atheism. I see no humour at all sorry?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ya'll are just blindly auto-defending, now.

 

[Sheldon]

All the more reason why we need to mind the logic and intention with which we use words.

Now that is hilarious, since you have consistently used a straw man fallacy, even after I and others explained our atheism does not involve a contrary claim to theism, and you have consistently ignored the fact that the primary dictionary definition of atheism also does not involve a contrary claim to theism.

 

[KWED]

I start from the baseline premise that it is not possible for a human being to determine the nature or even the existence of 'God'.

Well, given that your initial premise is flawed, we can dismiss the rest of your argument.
(You cannot possibly know if it is possible or not).

 

[KWED]

Well, that's just false. I almost never see anyone call anyone ELSE an atheist. It's always self-proclaimed. Ad nauseam, sometimes. And then defended tooth and nail, as I am sure this thread will soon attest.

Oh, dear. Yet another "rebuttal of atheism" that relies on a lack of understanding of what atheism is.
It is a sceptical response to the positive claim by religionists that certain gods exist.
Without the religionists proclaiming god, there could be no atheists.

 

[KWED]

You aren't addressing the question I asked. Lack of evidence results in your not knowing. Yet you are choosing (apparently) to presume the negative.

So you accept the existence of everything for which there is no evidence?
What's that?
You don't?
How strange...

Why? Why not simply accept ad remain agnostic?

And unsurprisingly, you also don't understand what "agnosticism" is.
You can be both atheist and agnostic at the same time. Many atheists are.
Just as you can be religious and agnostic. Many believers are.

 

[KWED]

"Self-proclaimed" is so often the prefix to "atheist", but not to
other beliefs or non-beliefs. Who isn't "self proclaimed", eh...
Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian, & Philosophical Taoist/Christian
We each decide what best labels our religion / philosophy.
It's not like any of us are certified. (Although I suppose that Jews
could be considered certified, given that maternal blood line &
conversion requirements stuff.)

TBF, most religionists are assigned their label at birth by parents, community and wider society.

 

[KWED]

Most theists are humanists

Hat-trick!
(You clearly don't understand what "Humanism" is either )

 

[KWED]

I believe that there are no amusement parks in my small town. I've driven all over and haven't seen any amusement parks or any of the signs that would normally go along with them.

Most of the people in town disagree with me. They say we have an amusement park here in town.

Now... some of them point to the Play Place at McDonald's as the "amusement park," and some have a personal definition of "amusement park" that includes any place that sparks joy, but most of them are convinced that Disney has built an entire subterranean amusement park resort under our town and will be opening it any day now. They're sure that Disney will offer heavily discounted tickets for local residents.

They're super excited about the idea. They've even created clubs about it: every week, they get together to chat about what the park will look like and sometimes to figure out which buildings in town might hide the secret entrances to the park. At the meetings, they even get the kids to draw pictures of what they think the roller coasters will look like and sing songs how much fun they'll have when they finally get to visit. They're all giddy with anticipation. It's a good time.

... mostly, at least. I mean, one of my friends was stuck walking 5 km each way through the snow to work last winter, which kinda sucked (her car broke down, but she didn't want to dip into her savings for park admission because she was convinced the park was going to open right away). And the bunch who are absolutely convinced that we'll be getting a Universal Studios still aren't on speaking terms with the bunch are absolutely convinced that we won't. Still, on the whole, people are probably happier thinking we have an amusement park than they would be otherwise.

So... am I wrong to believe that we don't have an amusement park? What would you do in this situation?

Keep in mind that there's evidence, too: a handful of people say that they know someone who knows someone who snuck down and saw the park (they all say it's awesome, BTW, but none of the claims about what's down there agree on the details). There's also Bill at the industrial supply store who sold big bolts - just the kind they use on roller coasters - to a stranger he'd never seen before, which he's sure counts for something.

Since I don't have time (or the inclination, frankly) to start digging test pits and boreholes all over town, I have no way to absolutely refute the claim that there's an amusement park here. Do you think I'm being foolish for presuming it's false?

Nice work!

 

[KWED]

So you're basing a probability on it's insufficient evidence??? That's not very logical of you!

What is illogical about basing the probability of something on the evidence for it?
(Looks like we can add "logic" and "probability" to the things you don't seem to understand)

 

[KWED]

Does this help to explain the logic of atheist? It's basically an application of good evidentiary standards, plus establishing burdens of proof according to the null hypothesis, plus acknowledging the concept of fallibilism.

The OP isn't concerned with "the logic of atheist". They simply believe atheism is wrong and are trying to convince themselves of that.

It's like those threads where a religionist asks atheists to convince them, but later admits that no amount of evidence or rational argument would shake their belief.

 

[Revoltingest]

TBF, most religionists are assigned their label at birth by parents, community and wider society.

Aye, religion seems to be a result of time & place of birth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Citing a reference tool like a dictionary, is axiomatically using objective evidence to support my claim that I was using the commonly understood definition of the word atheism. I see no humour at all sorry?

You can't see as see humor. There are different version of the verb "see".
Definition of SEE

 

[KWED]

I will be very surprised if, by way of response to your question, you get anything other than repeated counter-assertions. Well rehearsed ones at that.

This is because the decision either to believe or not to believe in God cannot be - and I think you've illustrated this in your OP - a choice entirely driven by reason. It can be justified by reason, up to a point; but to go the last yard in either direction, intuition or emotion must come in to play. And a person who prizes reason above all other human qualities, is unlikely to admit to being driven either by emotion or intuition.

We cannot "choose to believe". Belief is a subconscious response outcome to a variety of elements.

 

[KWED]

Hey, @PureX - any reason why you didn't also address your question to monotheists? They tend to be more hardcore about rejecting gods than the average atheist.

As Stephen Henry Roberts said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

 

[KWED]

In my experience, when people have to resort to analogies, it's because they can't deal with the issue the way they want to, first hand. And to me, that's a sign of intellectual weakness. I don't mean to be offensive. I'm just saying that what I'm asking for, here, is a simple enough request if you are a clear, logical, honest thinker (as so many atheists are so often telling us all that they are). I see no need for analogies, and too often they only serve to hide obfuscation, anyway. If you don't wish to respond I understand. Not every thread is for everyone.

I find that people usually resort to analogies when the other person is having trouble understanding basic concepts. They have been and still are widely used in literature, teaching, law, science, religion, philosophy, etc. Some of the greatest thinkers in history have made use of analogy to illustrate their arguments.

Claiming that the use of analogy is a sign of intellectual weakness shows, ironically, a lack of intellectual ability. But then, being such a self-proclaimed intellectual heavyweight - you already know that.

 

[Sheldon]

What is your criteria to determine something is false or nonexistent?

I can only deal what what is extant from my limited perspective.

What criteria are you using to determine something is extant?

I start from the baseline premise that it is not possible for a human being to determine the nature or even the existence of 'God'.

Yet believe one exists, and fail to see the contradiction?

"I don't know" (agnosticism) is the logical human response to the proposal that 'God/gods' exist.

However, this leaves the proposal of God's existence to be a possibility,

So you assert it is not possible to know anything about the nature or the existence of 'God', but then assert such a deity is possible.

Yes your logic is unassailable here.

 

[Sheldon]

You can't see as see humor. There are different version of the verb "see".
Definition of SEE

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here sorry? You seem to be offering cryptic responses, than rather specific observation about what I'd posted.

 

[KWED]

Yes, but most people will admit to their being illogical, biased, ignorant, and so on (as we all are). Whereas with self-proclaimed atheists, in particular, this seems not to be the case. Which is why I posted this question.

So you accept that your belief in gods is illogical, biased and ignorant?
Well, that's refreshingly honest.
However, my position that there is no evidence or rational argument for the existence of any of the gods of religion is entirely logical, balanced and informed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here sorry? You seem to be offering cryptic responses, than rather specific observation about what I'd posted.

Okay, so you don't use evidence and all that in this thread. You only use in other threads and what you do in this thread is not connected to evidence and so on. Okay.